3 ms·

You are saying, “no, the laws of physics are not mathematical constructs”..? If you’re interpreting “laws of physics” in your original post to mean “what’s real

You are saying, “no, the laws of physics are not mathematical constructs”..? If you’re interpreting “laws of physics” in your original post to mean “what’s really happening”, then your original post is effectively “Free will isn’t really happening because I believe it’s not really happening (laws of physics)”. It also sounds like you’re implicitly making assumptions that what’s really happening is obviously deterministic. This is not clear. “ No one has ever seen something in nature, or in the lab, that either couldn't have been predicted by the physics of the day, or later after new laws theories were created.” The list of contradictions to this statement is massive, unless you’re just asserting your faith that all questions will be answered.

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else. It's not some dualistic "you" controlling the neurons in your brain ... it's chemistry. Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand. Don't get hung up on the laws of physics being mathematical constructs... To make specific predictions you need an appropriately accurate language, and math does the job. Do I think that nature has a copy of Schrodringer's wave equation stashed away somewhere ? ... No, but the behavior of the system can still be accurately predicted by it. Maybe in the future the laws we've deduced will be described in a different fashion, but the underlying behavior and predictability will not have changed.
- GPerson 5y ago
  “Mathematical construct” is synonymous with “appropriately accurate language”. “I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else.”” True, but why do you think “what’s really happening” is reducible to any kind of precise theory? “ Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand.” Can you share the studies that show this? I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to convey here. Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made?
  - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
    > Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made? Sure, and also experiments where people report making conscious decisions for actions who's speed precludes a path through the cortex. What I meant by "... evolving neural activity .." was to explain how we feel as if we have a choice, and are making decisions, because before any action "decision" is made (motor control initiated) there will likely be a period beforehand where whatever triggered the action is being processed and the outcome is not yet clear. Eventually there'll be some sort of winner-takes-all collapse of the alternatives and one will dominate. In the prelude to final response, we have access to our "inner thoughts" and can see the indecision and process, and we attribute that to some theorized actor "my self". Anyways, I'm not here to convince you about this. As sure as I am about this, I do realize it's a "contrarian" view, and that the feeling of self-determination sure seems convincing, even if rationally a scientist may realize it is not true.
    - GPerson 5y ago
      I’ve not shared my opinion on the existence of free will by the way. I tend to think it does not but I also believe that it is an unknowable question. I also don’t think brain activity studies like those prove that no kind of free will is possible.
      - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
        It's the understood predictable nature of the stuff we're built out of - chemicals - that precludes free will. If animals were continually overriding the laws of chemistry in their brains, then it'd have been seen in some rat's brain in the lab by now!! What those brain/psychological studies do prove is that our subjective experience is misleading. Our experience and internal narrative of what we're doing, and why, are really just after-the-fact rationalizations of what our brain+body are doing.
HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
> The list of contradictions to this statement is massive Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability. At it's base nature appears to act according to the laws of quantum physics + general relativity. On top of the quantum level, we stack a hierarchy of more abstract laws of how things behave at larger scale, so we have the standard particle model, chemistry, classical physics, etc, stacked upon that. Due to current limits of computing, as well as the (mathematically) chaotic behavior of larger scale systems, we may not - as a matter of practicality - be able to predict their behavior, at least not based on a quantum level description, but that doesn't mean the laws of predictability ave abandoned us and the larger scale system has a mind of its own!
- GPerson 5y ago
  “ Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability.” Nothing is being confused. The list of contradictions to the statement is not limited in only this way, and I haven’t suggested it is. It seems like you’re saying, “what really happens” is reducible to the physical theories we have today, and if not then it will be reducible to the physical theories we’ll eventually have, or would have if we were smart enough. It seems like a matter of faith to think everything is reducible to precise theory. My personal belief is that “what really happens” is not entirely reducible to any kind of humanly expressible logic. To throw out some brand name contradictions to the original statement: What is dark matter? Is there a theory of quantum gravity? What is consciousness? How does the universe exist? Is there any kind of fundamental randomness? What about the fact that every theory studied involves idealizations like the real numbers? Are any two atomic particles of the same mathematical type actually the same? How about the known existence of unprovable mathematical statements (Godel’s first theorem)? (Also insert here every great unsolved math problem.)
  - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
    > what is dark matter Dunno. Does it even exist? Is there any inkling of this proposed stuff NOT acting according to some deducible laws. Seems pretty boring stuff - interacts with regular matter just via gravity. Do we have it in our head ? :-) > is there a theory of quantum gravity Is that a practical issue for predicting behavior of physical systems at any given scale? I'm pretty sure we don't need quantum gravity to adequately understand the chemistry of our brains. > what is consciousness Self-introspection via feedback paths in the brain. Damage those feedback paths and you'll get a condition such as "blind sight" where you can provably see, but not be aware of your ability to see. > how does the universe exist Dunno, but we're in it, and governed by how things behave in it. That question seems a bit off-topic regarding free will within our universe! > is there any kind of fundamental randomness Dunno. I'd bet not. Does it matter at the level of classical physics and above? > are two particles of same type actually the same Not sure what you're referring to. The Pauli exclusion principle? > how about Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc What's the relevance to the discussion? I can't prove what the stock market is going to do tomorrow either.

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago

I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else. It's not some dualistic "you" controlling the neurons in your brain ... it's chemistry. Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand. Don't get hung up on the laws of physics being mathematical constructs... To make specific predictions you need an appropriately accurate language, and math does the job. Do I think that nature has a copy of Schrodringer's wave equation stashed away somewhere ? ... No, but the behavior of the system can still be accurately predicted by it. Maybe in the future the laws we've deduced will be described in a different fashion, but the underlying behavior and predictability will not have changed.

GPerson 5y ago
“Mathematical construct” is synonymous with “appropriately accurate language”. “I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else.”” True, but why do you think “what’s really happening” is reducible to any kind of precise theory? “ Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand.” Can you share the studies that show this? I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to convey here. Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made?
- HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
  > Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made? Sure, and also experiments where people report making conscious decisions for actions who's speed precludes a path through the cortex. What I meant by "... evolving neural activity .." was to explain how we feel as if we have a choice, and are making decisions, because before any action "decision" is made (motor control initiated) there will likely be a period beforehand where whatever triggered the action is being processed and the outcome is not yet clear. Eventually there'll be some sort of winner-takes-all collapse of the alternatives and one will dominate. In the prelude to final response, we have access to our "inner thoughts" and can see the indecision and process, and we attribute that to some theorized actor "my self". Anyways, I'm not here to convince you about this. As sure as I am about this, I do realize it's a "contrarian" view, and that the feeling of self-determination sure seems convincing, even if rationally a scientist may realize it is not true.
  - GPerson 5y ago
    I’ve not shared my opinion on the existence of free will by the way. I tend to think it does not but I also believe that it is an unknowable question. I also don’t think brain activity studies like those prove that no kind of free will is possible.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
      It's the understood predictable nature of the stuff we're built out of - chemicals - that precludes free will. If animals were continually overriding the laws of chemistry in their brains, then it'd have been seen in some rat's brain in the lab by now!! What those brain/psychological studies do prove is that our subjective experience is misleading. Our experience and internal narrative of what we're doing, and why, are really just after-the-fact rationalizations of what our brain+body are doing.

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago

> The list of contradictions to this statement is massive Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability. At it's base nature appears to act according to the laws of quantum physics + general relativity. On top of the quantum level, we stack a hierarchy of more abstract laws of how things behave at larger scale, so we have the standard particle model, chemistry, classical physics, etc, stacked upon that. Due to current limits of computing, as well as the (mathematically) chaotic behavior of larger scale systems, we may not - as a matter of practicality - be able to predict their behavior, at least not based on a quantum level description, but that doesn't mean the laws of predictability ave abandoned us and the larger scale system has a mind of its own!

GPerson 5y ago
“ Don't confuse complexity and practical inability to predict with fundamental lack of predictability.” Nothing is being confused. The list of contradictions to the statement is not limited in only this way, and I haven’t suggested it is. It seems like you’re saying, “what really happens” is reducible to the physical theories we have today, and if not then it will be reducible to the physical theories we’ll eventually have, or would have if we were smart enough. It seems like a matter of faith to think everything is reducible to precise theory. My personal belief is that “what really happens” is not entirely reducible to any kind of humanly expressible logic. To throw out some brand name contradictions to the original statement: What is dark matter? Is there a theory of quantum gravity? What is consciousness? How does the universe exist? Is there any kind of fundamental randomness? What about the fact that every theory studied involves idealizations like the real numbers? Are any two atomic particles of the same mathematical type actually the same? How about the known existence of unprovable mathematical statements (Godel’s first theorem)? (Also insert here every great unsolved math problem.)
- HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
  > what is dark matter Dunno. Does it even exist? Is there any inkling of this proposed stuff NOT acting according to some deducible laws. Seems pretty boring stuff - interacts with regular matter just via gravity. Do we have it in our head ? :-) > is there a theory of quantum gravity Is that a practical issue for predicting behavior of physical systems at any given scale? I'm pretty sure we don't need quantum gravity to adequately understand the chemistry of our brains. > what is consciousness Self-introspection via feedback paths in the brain. Damage those feedback paths and you'll get a condition such as "blind sight" where you can provably see, but not be aware of your ability to see. > how does the universe exist Dunno, but we're in it, and governed by how things behave in it. That question seems a bit off-topic regarding free will within our universe! > is there any kind of fundamental randomness Dunno. I'd bet not. Does it matter at the level of classical physics and above? > are two particles of same type actually the same Not sure what you're referring to. The Pauli exclusion principle? > how about Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc What's the relevance to the discussion? I can't prove what the stock market is going to do tomorrow either.